| DCPreamp |
I saw this link on James Randi's website and have enjoyed the information greatly. Some of it I've read before, but thought others may find the information eye opening and informative. Of course, some will stick their noses in the air, rub their SHAKTI stones for luck, and go on freezing their $1,000 power cords.
http://www.bruce.coppola.name/audio/wisdom.html
Enjoy! |
|
|
| jneutron |
Thanks for the links.
I added the winer articles to my notebook after I circled all the incorrect things he says. One had five, the other, six.
It's a shame, as the bulk of the bulk message is correct.
Davis also, but I had his from previous. His is more technically oriented, nice job. Alas, he also has some foibles.
published in JAES, 1991...it is a shame that the audio engineering community at large has not progressed much in the intervening years.
Cheers, John |
|
|
| FastEddy |
| the link failed for me :confused: |
|
|
| DCPreamp |
Hi John,
What are your gripes about the articles? I've read many of your posts and my asking is out of respect for your opinions, not for argument.
Now that I'm aware of it, I've been enjoying reading The Audio Critic, though it does get a tad repetitive. Had I known about TAC years ago, it could have saved me some equipment changes and experimentation that lead me to the same conclusions they already knew. Of course, I'm better equipped for arguments having had the experiences.
Thanks |
|
|
| jneutron |
| quote: | Originally posted by DCPreamp
Hi John,
What are your gripes about the articles? I've read many of your posts and my asking is out of respect for your opinions, not for argument.
|
I didn't think you were asking to diss me, your disclaimer, while nice, was un-neccessary.
Winer ""The above parameters encompass everything that affects audio fidelity""
The "above" list included FR, Distortion, time based errors, and room acoustics.
I almost bought it, but when I read his time based error explanation, it was incomplete. He refers to pitch and tempo.
What happened to interchannel temporal issues? Very small time errors between the two channels cause the soundstage to change drastically. Interchannel amplitude errors cause the same. And both entities are affected by the wire resistance and storage reactance when driving a two way crossover. His biwiring rant is just plain outright wrong..
He also repeats the erroneous miles and miles of wire fallacy when speaking of power cords. Obviously, a ground loop hum is not considered, nor is a ground loop error component. Guess if the ground loop induced hum is lowered enough, then the loop can be considered gone? No.
Fred davis needs to re-read his e/m theory when it comes to transmission lines. And, he needs to consider a two way speaker load (or even two resistors with a simple crossover) for his entire article, as his test regimen and analysis, while good for 1991, are completely inadequate today. Given his paper for refereeing, I would send it back explaining the large holes in the analysis and the conclusions, but I would not check the "unsuitable for print" box, merely the "change a coupla things" box.
But Fred's overall paper was quite excellent, he is very good. With some direction, his type of work could advance sota significantly.
Cheers, John
edit:spelling..it's always...spelling...:xeye: |
|
|
| FastEddy |
| The link works now ... musta been the taliban attacks on the North American internet today ... :rolleyes: |
|
|
| FastEddy |
Re: http://www.bruce.coppola.name/audio...nteractions.pdf
Where do I get this #6 wire?? = " 6) Spectra-Strip 843-138-2601-064 Ribbon Cable. Abbreviated 138-064. Made of 32 twisted pairs of 26 AWG wire (7'34), arranged in a flat ribbon. Intended for high-speed differential digital data transmission. ..."
No mention of whether it is silver or copper or silver plated copper ... ? and no mention of the shething = is it teflon or PVC or what ?? But those graphs sure indicate it is the winner ...
....
Re: http://www.theaudiocritic.com/downloads/article_1.pdf ... this article has already been de-bugged = a bunch of carpola with no redeeming value, no scientific analisys.
....
Re: http://www.bruce.coppola.name/audio/urbanLegends.pdf ... several reasonable points about the subjectivity of the reviewer/listener ... but some of this author's points are off the wall and contrary to sound scientific proofs :
"legend #1": "[The] differences between electrolitic capacitors and the same measured value polypropolene dialetric ..." There have been numerous articles written [Electronic Design Magazine, et al] demonstrating significant differences in the audio range of various dialectrics in capacitors. (This is why there are MIL Specs = absolute laboratory results indicate there is significant differences between these two types of dialectrics and others.)
"legend" #2: As for speaker size having to do with speaker response curves, etc. ... bigger = lower, smaller = higher ... a physical reality usually demonstrated in junior highschool science classes.
"legend" #3: Anyone aware of modern frequency dividing technics knows that this is possible. There are some very interesting sounds (tunes, changes of pace & rythum) apparent on the new Sir George Martin's Beatles "Love" album, different effects from the same master tapes, digitally modified with these technics and others to produce a whole new "feel" for this music.
"legend" #4: Very low bass is much less noticable in a tightly enclosed area. Stick this "legend" writer inside a sub woofer box to be sure = no apparent low bass inside, yet outside the sub woofer box we all hear it just fine. If the writer is unavailable for this test, use a couple of microphones, one outside, one inside = again, junior high science.
"legend" #5: Give the writer a couple of coat hangers for his speaker leads and see how much difference he notices ...
"legend" #6: Speakers on "tiptoes" = maybe, maybe not ... but turntables on tiptoes = Yes!, much better rumble removal, etc.
"legend" #7: I believe he has it totally wrong here. Those of us who spend a lot of time exploring 24bit verses 16bit audio know that DVD players can be vastly superior to CD players. Check out the album mentioned above = a 2 disc set, one 16bit CD and one 24bit DVD-A ... and guess which one my mother-in-law prefers to listen to ... there are significant differences, the 24bit DVD-A winning hands down without question.
"legend" #8: LPs sound better than ... well, anything. Anyone who does not believe this has not visited a high end audio store in the last decade. Vinyl rules, dude and it is even better than 24bit DVD-A, although not much ... he, he, he ...
"legend" #9: ... data reduction lowers quality , "yes it doeszzz ... Ooohh yeahaaaa" >> see #3 & #7 above, paa lease ...
"legend" #10: ... well, this is the first time I've ever heard this. I would bet the tube amp guys will have something to say about this one = smaller may be better ...
"legend" #11: EQ = bad ... tell that to Yello .... "Oh, yeahaaaa ...."
"legend: #12: This negative feedback that I am giving these duffuses is not bad ...
"legend" #13: Short signal pathways have been understood since Nikola Tesla invented iron core inductors = its what makes cell phones possible, dummy ... again, a little attention in science class would clear this up right away.
"legend" #14: ... well, so what? Actually this all depends on the content ...
"legend" #15: Auto sound IS bad ... see #4 above a substitute the writer's mini-cooper for the sub woofer box (doors closed, windows up ...). Also I have yet to see a properly implimented DVD-Audio player in a mobile system.
"legend" #16: ... movie/video tracks = bad? except when it is good. Check out the sound tracks of any DVD music video = 24bit/48k usually, sometimes even better = almost always better than the original CD sound tracks.
....
http://www.bruce.coppola.name/audio/BurnInLegend.pdf ... this guy doesn't have much schoolin' either. Burn in of aviation electronic equipment is SOP and wouldn't pass the FCC or FAA certifications without it ...
....
http://www.bruce.coppola.name/audio/Amp_Sound.pdf ... The author does a whole lot of wheel spinning here. There are differences between that kids' boombox and a Mark Levenson amp. There may not be significant differences between two US$10,000 amps of different manufacture ... but that's what makes for horse races.
...
I can't quite understand why these web links are here. One would think the web page author and the authors of his linked articles would at least ask a qualified engineer or even a high school science teacher about some of this stuff before he (they) wrote up these screedes. But why not, whiners usually take this kind of tack when they can't find anything else to write about. One wonders why ... and one wonders whether these guys even have a decent sense of hearing ?? Some folks are actually tone deaf and some are born hard of hearing. I suppose I shouldn't poke so much fun at the handicapped ... (But I especially had a lot of fun debugging the Bruce's "urban legend" link = every one was wrong.)
:whazzat: |
|
|
| SY |
| Your debunking needs some serious debunking. But I'm getting too old for that kind of thing... |
|
|
| audio-kraut |
| quote: | | But why not, whiners usually take this kind of tack when they can't find anything else to write about. |
looked in the mirror of this thread lately? |
|
|
| planet10 |
| quote: | Originally posted by DCPreamp
The Audio Critic |
So far over the top it has to be considered satire...
dave |
|
|
| BrianDonegan |
| quote: | | Burn in of aviation electronic equipment is SOP and wouldn't pass the FCC or FAA certifications without it ... |
Um, that burn-in isn't so they reach a certain operating potential, it's be be sure they will last. This is referred to at eh beginning of the article in question. Solid state devices has a failure mode tha tis the inverse of mechanical devices. Generally speaking, a solid state device will fail early, or not for a long time (the opposite of a mechanical device that wears out over time). Burn in of aviation electronics is to lessen the chance of failure while on duty. |
|
|
| cotdt |
I have something else to add to the list of audiophile myths: It's a myth that different speakers can sound different. There has been numerous blind tests that have definitively proven that all speakers sound the same, and numerous tests showed that people couldn't tell the difference between $10 computer speaker and $10000 dollar "audiophile" speakers. This is pretty well known, yet here you've got all these people spending thousands of dollars on speakers when it makes no difference anyway. And in the loudspeaker forum, all these people are spending so much time trying to design and build their speakers, when it makes no difference anyway. It will only sound the same. Our ears play tricks on us.
The same applies to amplifiers. All amps sound the same and numerous blind tests have proven this as well. Our ears play tricks on us.
Needless to say, we are all a victim of our deceiving ears. Our ears play tricks on us. |
|
|
| SY |
| quote: | | Our ears play tricks on us. |
No, but human brains are lying rascals. |
|
|
| DCPreamp |
"people couldn't tell the difference between $10 computer speaker and $10000 dollar "audiophile" speakers."
If $10 computer speaker manufacturers advertised in Stereophile Magazine, they would be praised and make statements similar to yours. |
|
|
| FastEddy |
" ... "people couldn't tell the difference between $10 computer speaker and $10000 dollar "audiophile" speakers." ... If $10 computer speaker manufacturers advertised in Stereophile Magazine, they would be praised and make statements similar to yours. ..."
Make that "SOME people couldn't tell ...." I can tell the differences and so can most of the folks posting here. I have some very good US$89 speakers (Intrega/pair) that sond just fine when in a certail sized room ... until I connect my home made mains and compare them (~>US$1000/pair) ... or connect my Mannies up for a real comparison. There are some basic simple physics involved here, mostly having to do with speaker size = the sound pressure and efficiencies and MOST people can easily tell the difference between smaller 10 dollar toys and 1000 dollar mains.
I love these BS artists trying to compare the listening experience of some burned out hippie's hearing ability, their own personal tone deafness and those of us who have been exposed to a quality music listening environment ... there is a difference.
First, give a hearing test to the reviewer ... :D |
|
|
| FastEddy |
" ... that burn-in isn't so they reach a certain operating potential, it's be be sure they will last. This is referred to at eh beginning of the article in question. Solid state devices has a failure mode tha tis the inverse of mechanical devices. ..."
Yes ... but also so that the Device Under Test "sets" to a certain level of performance ... Listen, no aviator in his right mind would trust his/her life to an untried radio ... one that had been burned in and "set" to repeatable receivability and transmitability = meaning to the level of expectation of performance AND reliability. That's why the antennas are tuned to aircraft radio AFTER a significant burn-in period = 'cause the performance is better as well as the reliability. (Its right there in the older A&P mechanics' tests.)
Solder connections and wire resistance changes over time to a "set point" or average performance level, and this time frame is accelerated during and by the "burn-in" process.
At the risk of overkill on this, check out these speakers: http://www.magnepan.com/model_MMG ... they require several weeks of "burn-in" before they begin to sound right ... just like a new pair of shoes ... |
|
|
| jneutron |
| quote: | Originally posted by FastEddy
Yes ... but also so that the Device Under Test "sets" to a certain level of performance ... Listen, no aviator in his right mind would trust his/her life to an untried radio ... one that had been burned in and "set" to repeatable receivability and transmitability = meaning to the level of expectation of performance AND reliability. That's why the antennas are tuned to aircraft radio AFTER a significant burn-in period = 'cause the performance is better as well as the reliability. (Its right there in the older A&P mechanics' tests.) |
Burn in serves two purposes. The first is to cull out the units which will fail prematurely as a result of manufacturing defects. The second is to secure the operational parameters from unwanted drift.
Radios no longer use simple tuning circuits, the frequency stability of modern electronics no longer requires antenna's be tuned to accomodate them. Tuning after a burn in is simply a choice, not a requirement. the "older A&P" statement is key here, it is not that way anymore.| quote: | Originally posted by FastEddy
Solder connections and wire resistance changes over time to a "set point" or average performance level, and this time frame is accelerated during and by the "burn-in" process. |
That is entirely inaccurate. I do not know where you got that, but it is fiction.
| quote: | Originally posted by FastEddy
At the risk of overkill on this, check out these speakers: http://www.magnepan.com/model_MMG ... they require several weeks of "burn-in" before they begin to sound right ... just like a new pair of shoes ... |
That is not overkill. The compliance of the suspension system changes during the break in, and is a well established physical process, unlike your "solder and wire" changes which do not have the "luxury" of any supporting data.
Cheers, John |
|
|
| cotdt |
| burn-in is a myth, since all speakers sound the same anyway. |
|
|
| adason |
| quote: | | burn-in is a myth, since all speakers sound the same anyway. |
period |
|
|
| BrianDonegan |
| quote: | | At the risk of overkill on this, check out these speakers: http://www.magnepan.com/model_MMG ... they require several weeks of "burn-in" before they begin to sound right ... just like a new pair of shoes ... |
I agree with that, but these are not solid state devices, but electro-mechanical devices. |
|
|
| pjpoes |
I'm curious if most of these posts are sarcastic jokes, or if people actually believe any of this ****.
I'm a psychologist who works in the field of developing evaluations and study methods to test Human perception, ie I perform blind tests all the time. I have also looked into the matter of blind tests proving that all amps or speakers or wires, etc sound the same, and can say that, not only are there very few of these tests performed, but non by reliable scientific methods in correctly controlled situations. None is real scientific labs, none by universities, and none by real professionsals.
I would also add that, though it seems that electrical engineers and like minded people feel the truth is evident here, that we can measure in objective methods with solid accurate and repeatable numbers everything we can sense, those trained in that actual field, ie psychologist, do not agree at all. We do not believe that we yet have the ability to accuratly measure sound as it really pertains to humans. Though we can measure many aspects of a wave, we simply can not measure accuratly how the ear takes that wave and turns it into our audible perceptions. At best we are guessing, and more and more accuratly I will add, but still looking for a better method. |
|
|
| jneutron |
| quote: | Originally posted by pjpoes
.....though it seems that electrical engineers and like minded people feel the truth is evident here...... |
Your brush is too large.
John |
|
|
| pjpoes |
yeah I like to use large brushes it makes for less work.
I know, thats a major overstatement. I just constantly read all these people who either are electrical engineers or think they are who state that we need to only measure audio equipment, because it tells us everything we need to know about a piece of equipment. My belief based on my scientific background is this, measuring equipment has very strong internal validity and very weak external validity. In other words, measurements give us very concrete answeres, they are repeatable, we are certain of what we are measuring to within a reasonable level, etc. However the correlation between what we measure and what we hear is much less certain, if not unknown, this real world accuracy isn't so great. Subjective listening tests offer much greater external validity, but have far too weak internal validity, as we aren't sure what we are measuring, nor is it repeatable. Also, it introduces intervening variables that would be difficult to remove. I wrote a long post on all this once, along with my opinion on how to accuratly measure this stuff, using the currently accepted behavior observation coding methods used. The behavior coded hear happens to be hearing, which isn't as easily observed, but still, using the same principles, it can be incorparated just fine.
On a related rant, one of the things I hate most about the scientific community is the utter lack of interdisciplinary research work. Not to say it never happens, but not at the broad scale I would like to see. Instead we fight with each other over who has the right methods, or the most accurate ones at least. I feel that an electrical engineer has no more business telling us how to measure the sound of things than a psychologist does on how to design say an amp. Scientists frequently step out of their area of expertise and make very bold claims in the process, which simply dirties the waters of communication. I have tried for over a year now to get academic approval to study human perception with regard to hearing specificly, and earn a better understanding of what takes place between the reproduction of sound, and our perception of that reproduced sound. You will notice I have made a very narrow study claim, I'm not claiming anything about how we hear as a whole, or percieve live music, etc. Simply what I can study, I can easily put headphones on a person, or speakers in front of them, and study what happens, but the results will only apply to that situation.
I would also add that placebo effects are real, as real as anything else. Sure, we know that whats going on is simply a trick of the mind, but that doesn't mean nothing is happening, it just means that the only reason for the change is beacuse we believe in the change. Though I completely disagree that computer speakers of any grade sound as good as 1000,000,000 dollar home speakers, that isn't to say that peoples perception of the sound couldn't be improved greatly through placebo effects. Good advertising and reviews in a reputable magazine can do that, good online feedback can do that, etc. People may not like the existance of things like magic stones and sand filled stands, but even if they make no measurable difference, that doesn't mean that can't really improve the sound of reproduced music for a listener, as I said, placebo effects are just as real as anything else. If spending 50 dollars on a jar of marbles makes the imaging better in my head, I'm all for it, I would gladly spend 50 dollars to get a hypnotist to make me believe my speakers sound like a million bucks. |
|
|
| SY |
| quote: | | I have also looked into the matter of blind tests proving that all amps or speakers or wires, etc sound the same |
A common straw man. None of the tests made by professionals and universities (like Greiner, Vanderkooy, Lipshitz, Toole, and the like) have ever made that claim. Their work is detailed, professional, well-controlled, and yes, interdisciplinary. So much so that the charlatans and gulls of this world spend an enormous amount of time misrepresenting that body of work and leading their minions in a Two Minutes Hate against those Goldbergs.
If you can find ONE published paper in JAES or a similar journal that makes this remarkable claim, please reference it. |
|
|
| Cal Weldon |
| quote: | Originally posted by pjpoes
I'm curious if most of these posts are sarcastic jokes, or if people actually believe any of this ****. |
A psychologist doesn't recognize trolling when he sees it? ;)
EDIT: Geez, I hope I don't have to change my signature line now. |
|
|
| jneutron |
| quote: | Originally posted by pjpoes
yeah I like to use large brushes it makes for less work. |
Yes, I noticed. Sometimes, work needs to be visited, not avoided. In your zeal to avoid work, you are painting the trim and the window as well as the siding.| quote: | Originally posted by pjpoes
On a related rant, one of the things I hate most about the scientific community is the utter lack of interdisciplinary research work. ........ I feel that an electrical engineer has no more business telling us how to measure the sound of things than a psychologist does on how to design say an amp. |
So much for your desire for interdisciplinary research.
| quote: | Originally posted by pjpoes
I have tried for over a year now to get academic approval to study human perception with regard to hearing specificly, and earn a better understanding of what takes place between the reproduction of sound, and our perception of that reproduced sound. You will notice I have made a very narrow study claim, I'm not claiming anything about how we hear as a whole, or percieve live music, etc. Simply what I can study, I can easily put headphones on a person, or speakers in front of them, and study what happens, but the results will only apply to that situation. |
Why is it not going through? From your descriptor, I can't think of anything that would distinguish it from any established work, from Nordmark to Bernstein, so I could easily see why you're not getting approval.
Is this for a thesis?
Forget headphones, lateralization's been beat to death. Go for speakers and localization...measure and characterize human ITD/IID response and human alteration of response due to shifts in these cues. And do it in 2-D, not a simplistic arc. And Pulllllleeeese, none of this "pointer/target" stuff using two entirely independent localization parameters in entirely useless, not found in nature, setups...ok?? It's bad enough we have to listen to entirely artificial ITD/IID cue constructs in the recorded material we buy, do we have to read it in the far too many studies which do not measure what we hear?
Course, me being an eeeeelectrikal injuneer, guess I shouldn't be telling ya anything bout localization stimulus and adaptation to varying response vs time, should I...you've told us it's not my business to discuss this "audible" stuff, who am I to argue???
Ah, youngins...the curve is ahead for you...
Cheers, John
ps...where in NY? What univ? |
|
|
| FastEddy |
" ... The first is to cull out the units which will fail prematurely as a result of manufacturing defects. The second is to secure the operational parameters from unwanted drift. ..."
" ... burn-in is a myth, since all speakers sound the same anyway. ..." " ... period ..."
" ... I perform blind tests all the time. I have also looked into the matter of blind tests proving that all amps or speakers or wires, etc sound the same, and can say that, not only are there very few of these tests performed, but non by reliable scientific methods in correctly controlled situations. None is real scientific labs, none by universities, and none by real professionsals. ..."
" ... I agree with that, but these are not solid state devices, but electro-mechanical devices. ..."
...
All of my references are related to personal experience as: *) a radio engineer, *) an electronics engineer, *) a degreed physics teacher, *) a digital and analog device builder, *) a schooled, union communications technician ... decades of experience with this stuff.
Yes, a huge amount of the evidence vis a vis "burn in / break in" of electronic and electro-mechanical devices is from subjective reports = "... it sounds better to me ...".
But there is very solid, verifiable scientific evidence that the "burn in" and "break in" phenomena is very real. Mechanical: new shoes. Electro-mechanical: solenoid performance over time. Electrical: thermo-couples, solar panels and transformers. Electronic: diode and transistor barrier junction stabalization of resistance. Atomic and sub-atomic physics: electron orbit stabization or decay (not to mention radioactivity) ... all of this is objective, Ocum's Razor type reports from scientific and engineering laboratories. (Variously spelled Ocum, Occam, Occum, Ockume.)
<removed by moderator>
See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism |
|
|
| FastEddy |
pjpoes: " ... Scientists frequently step out of their area of expertise and make very bold claims in the process, which simply dirties the waters of communication. ..."
<inapproriate and off topic comment removed by moderator>
:bigeyes: |
|
|
| jneutron |
| quote: | Originally posted by FastEddy
"quote from me: ... The first is to cull out the units which will fail prematurely as a result of manufacturing defects. The second is to secure the operational parameters from unwanted drift. ..."
All of my references are related to personal experience as: *) a radio engineer, *) an electronics engineer, *) a degreed physics teacher, *) a digital and analog device builder, *) a schooled, union communications technician ... decades of experience with this stuff. |
Fine and dandy. So where in that experience, is "solder joint settling in and wire resistance changes". You lack evidence on this, simply because there is none. Your credential, while nice, do not provide this evidence either.
| quote: | Originally posted by FastEddy
"But there is very solid, verifiable scientific evidence that the "burn in" and "break in" phenomena is very real. Mechanical: new shoes. Electro-mechanical: solenoid performance over time. Electrical: thermo-couples, solar panels and transformers. Electronic: diode and transistor barrier junction stabalization of resistance. Atomic and sub-atomic physics: electron orbit stabization or decay (not to mention radioactivity) ... all of this is objective, |
I work with approximately 500 to 1000 world renowned physicists (depends on whether the experiments are on or not), do you really think any one of them would state that "electron orbit stabilization or decay" is altered by a two week burn-in??
Never saw a diode go through "barrier junction stabilization through burnin either, and I've burned in diodes from 12 mil by 12 mil up to 3 inch diameter. Reverse leakage issues due to passivation integrity are mechanical defects.
Cheers, John |
|
|
| pinkmouse |
| I really wish people would read Karl Popper before getting into this debate! ;) |
|
|
| FastEddy |
" ... I work with approximately 500 to 1000 world renowned physicists (depends on whether the experiments are on or not), do you really think any one of them would state that "electron orbit stabilization or decay" is altered by a two week burn-in?? ..."
I didn't quite understand that we had decided that there was a specific time frame associated with this argument ... just that over a given length of time, the burn-in phenomina does exist.
And I refer the gentleman to the arguement I posed some moments ago.
...
Cal: I would remove it if it offends anyone. It does affect the arguement as both Logical Positivism and the possed Global Warming argument do relate to this question (although I agree, it may be a reach). (I [also] believe that my message has "burned in" as I can no longer edit it ... :confused:
" ... Sheesh, cal..I figured it was the other last line... " = me too ...
...
pinkmouse: Sir Karl Raimund Popper : " Logically, no number of positive outcomes at the level of experimental testing can confirm a scientific theory, but a single counterexample is logically decisive ..." You mean this guy? |
|
|
| jneutron |
| quote: | Originally posted by pinkmouse
I really wish people would read Karl Popper before getting into this debate! ;) |
Boring..I liked "flatlander" better..by Abbott Abbott..
At least he liked Einstein..but, that was of course, relatively speaking..
Cheers, John
BTW, I'm positive he wrote it so he could call himself "A squared"..
Sheesh, cal..I figured it was the other last line... |
|
|
| SY |
| quote: | Originally posted by pinkmouse
I really wish people would read Karl Popper before getting into this debate! ;) |
Yeah, I love Blues Traveler. |
|
|
| jneutron |
| quote: | Originally posted by FastEddy
I didn't quite understand that we had decided that there was a specific time frame associated with this argument ... just that over a given length of time, the burn-in phenomina does exist. |
I DID burn of military and high rel hardware for more years of my career than I care to let on with. What, you gonna say three weeks, five, ten, 5 years?? You asserted that electron orbital stabilization and decay was affected by burn in. You've no proof or data in support of that. Cause you'da presented it if ya had. The guys here are unaware of such. And they are most likely to have experienced it.
Burn in exists, I do it. Your interesting assertions did nothing to support your argument.
Cheers, John |
|
|
| FastEddy |
The Logic of Scientific Discovery (Routledge Classics) by Karl Popper (avail. frm Amazon.com).
A total misnaming of a book title as his arguements attempt to disprove just about every commonly accepted scientific hypothesis ... IMPO :D |
|
|
| cotdt |
| it doesn't even matter if you can measure burn-in (you certainly can for many things like speaker drivers). it will still sound the same, because all speakers sound the same. no one has ever told the difference between two speakers in a double blind test. |
|
|
| FastEddy |
" ... What, you gonna say three weeks, five, ten, 5 years?? You asserted that electron orbital stabilization and decay was affected by burn in. You've no proof or data in support of that. ..."
Absolutely correct about the length of time for electron orbital stabization, the mean times are usually quite short ... so I suppose I should use some other example ... however, as He said: "As above so below, as below so above ..."
Cool Dashboard Widget: http://www.apple.com/downloads/dash...iodictable.html ...
Considering Aluminum, Silver, Gold or Copper conductors, the electron spin resonance frequency (the number of events or changes in events over time) in the outer electrons' orbits with respect to temperature (and/or temperature changes) and other factors ... like "burn in" ... but you are correct that these changes take place over such a short amount of local real time, that for most practical purposes, it can be ignored ... except when applied to very small transistor junctions like those found in high density op-amps and modern class-d amp die ...
:cool: |
|
|
| FastEddy |
" ... it will still sound the same, because all speakers sound the same. no one has ever told the difference between two speakers in a double blind test. ..."
Here is a "double blind" test:
The guy in the next cubical has just turned off our office audio system (playing iTunes through an Alesys amp and a pair of planar Mannies (US$800 / pair) ... and turned on the Roland MA-150 "studio" monitors (US$150/pair) direct connected via internal amps to the USB ports on an Apple Mac Mini = same cpu, same iTunes, different amps and speakers.
He will now tell me if there is any differences ... waiting ... waiting ... he is now rolling his chair across the room to give a listen to each ... and back ... and back again ... the answer is:
"Well, I don't know ... " throws up his hands ... "I can't tell the difference ..."
My Q&A: "Now which do you want to listen to?"
His reply: "Those big guys ... 'cause they are not in my face ..."
:eek: |
|
|
| FastEddy |
... and I just asked him if he was tone deaf ... "I don't think so, but I don't really know what that means ..."
:D
My little "double blind" test has blind sided me ... Oh, well. I like the big guys myself, but maybe I'm the one who is "tone deaf". |
|
|
| jneutron |
| quote: | Originally posted by FastEddy
Absolutely correct about the length of time for electron orbital stabization, the mean times are usually quite short ... so I suppose I should use some other example [/B] |
Why on earth did you try to use a completely incorrect example in the first place?? Do not assume that people here do not already understand that stuff, as you can see that some do.
| quote: | Originally posted by FastEddy
Considering Aluminum, Silver, Gold or Copper conductors, the electron spin resonance frequency (the number of events or changes in events over time) in the outer electrons' orbits with respect to temperature (and/or temperature changes) and other factors ... like "burn in" ... but you are correct that these changes take place over such a short amount of local real time, that for most practical purposes, it can be ignored ... except when applied to very small transistor junctions like those found in high density op-amps and modern class-d amp die ...
:cool: |
Sigh..guess I forgot to mention the spin physics guys here. I build widgits for them. They can also explain why your last paragraph has nuttin to do with burn in. It's fun reading their papers and hearing their presentatiions (just had Roger Penrose here)..course, some of what they say is just a "tad" above me..but man, tis fun..Even at my level, I know ya's just "funnin" us with this stuff.
I've burned in every type and class of semiconductor known to man, diodes, zistors, digi's, analogs, every type ever made, exceptin for silicon carbide stuff. Didn't exist back in the day. ( But I expect that to change soon, as we may be purchasin a coupla thousand of em to fix a "yittle itty bitty" switcher supply problem.)
Small junctions ain't the key either. For dem widgits, it's the oxide quality as well as the passivation quality..
Some guys here are actually measurin eeeelectron type movement timeframes hear, it's called LEAF, a Laser/Electron type thingy, where they time reactions at the femptosecond level..neat stuff..
Cheers, John |
|
|
| jneutron |
| quote: | Originally posted by cotdt
it doesn't even matter if you can measure burn-in (you certainly can for many things like speaker drivers). it will still sound the same, because all speakers sound the same. no one has ever told the difference between two speakers in a double blind test. |
The first time you said this, I figured you wuz just havin fun.
Now, ya's beginnin ta scare me.
It's gettin old fast..
John |
|
|
| SY |
| Don't feed the trolls. |
|
|
| FastEddy |
" ... Small junctions ain't the key either. For dem widgits, it's the oxide quality as well as the passivation quality.. ..."
I guess I will bow outta this for now ... I do know of One Sure Absolute from all this:
Always Question Authority.
(" ... and dat lucky ol' Sun, just keeps rollin' aroun' ... Rollin' 'roun' heben all day ...") |
|
|
| jneutron |
| quote: | Originally posted by FastEddy
" ... Small junctions ain't the key either. For dem widgits, it's the oxide quality as well as the passivation quality.. ..."
I guess I will bow outta this for now |
Good nuff. If you wish to discuss burn in with somebody who has done so for decades, just call, I have a "yittle" bit of experience along this line.
| quote: | Originally posted by FastEddy
... I do know of One Sure Absolute from all this:
Always Question Authority.
|
That is a must. To that, I add another: don't trust all the google results, there's a lot out there that is written by those who want to appear to be an authority.
Cheers ,John |
|
|
| FastEddy |
" ... To that, I add another: don't trust all the google results, there's a lot out there that is written by those who want to appear to be an authority. ..."
Trust Google ?? ... No way.
Trust Wikipedia ?? ... Always ...
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scient..._climate_change :confused: ) |
|
|
| jneutron |
| quote: | Originally posted by FastEddy
" ... To that, I add another: don't trust all the google results, there's a lot out there that is written by those who want to appear to be an authority. ..."
Trust Google ?? ... No way.
Trust Wikipedia ?? ... Always ...
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scient..._climate_change :confused: ) |
You gotta be kiddin me. Wikipedia??
Look up biwiring..or skin effect..
sigh..the accuracy is only as good as the proctor'd input.
Honestly, both have some good, some bad..but no tags stating such..I feel bad for the non-tech types looking for info.
If I want to know bout global warming, I only have to walk half a mile.
Cheers, John |
|
|
| pinkmouse |
| quote: | Originally posted by FastEddy
pinkmouse: Sir Karl Raimund Popper : " Logically, no number of positive outcomes at the level of experimental testing can confirm a scientific theory, but a single counterexample is logically decisive ..." You mean this guy? |
Yup that's the one, and speaking as a Fortean, that comment still stands as true. He did get a little strange at times, but then he was a philosopher. ;) |
|
|
| panomaniac |
Wow! When this thread opened I thought no one would reply. Wrong-o!
I browsed thru some of the articles linked. Fun stuff, good stuff, but it seems like way too much axe grinding from the "It all sounds the same" camp.
| quote: | Originally posted by cotdt
all speakers sound the same. no one has ever told the difference between two speakers in a double blind test. |
:D:D Yep - I don't know why we even bother. If we listen to the reasonable people we will be shown that everything sounds the same. Maybe that's even true for music? Does it matter who's playing, as long as it's the same notes?
Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of pure silver cryo treated power cords, but gosh - some things make a difference.
Although.... why does burn in always make the device sound better? Hmmm...... |
|
|
| rdf |
| I'm at work and can't spare the time for more than a quick sampling but, c'mon, that Winer article at least was awful Stereo Review-level dilettantish dreck. |
|
|
| DrFrankenstein |
| quote: | Originally posted by cotdt
I have something else to add to the list of audiophile myths: It's a myth that different speakers can sound different. There has been numerous blind tests that have definitively proven that all speakers sound the same, and numerous tests showed that people couldn't tell the difference between $10 computer speaker and $10000 dollar "audiophile" speakers. This is pretty well known, yet here you've got all these people spending thousands of dollars on speakers when it makes no difference anyway. And in the loudspeaker forum, all these people are spending so much time trying to design and build their speakers, when it makes no difference anyway. It will only sound the same. Our ears play tricks on us.
The same applies to amplifiers. All amps sound the same and numerous blind tests have proven this as well. Our ears play tricks on us.
Needless to say, we are all a victim of our deceiving ears. Our ears play tricks on us. |
Based on your absurd logic cotdt, a tweeter sounds the same as a woofer because after all, they're both speakers.
:whazzat:
What CAN be said is, a $20 speaker can sound as good as or better than a $200 speaker, I've witnessed this plenty. Considering that speaker technology hasn't really changed in nearly 100 years aside from the use of better quality materials, it's hard to justify a single driver costing $200, I don't care what marketing scheme you use.
Beryllium?
Spare me.
Ribbon tweeters?
Is it Christmas ribbon because everyone loves Christmas...
Bose?
..excuse me while I fall down on the floor in hysterical laughter..pwahahahahahahahahahahahaha!:D
The myth here is, a $200 driver with a reputable name on it will sound better than a driver with very similar specs that has a lesser name on it and a $40 price tag. Not all the time but most of the time, you're paying for the name not a difference in quality.
I work with a lot of different drivers intended for different audio applications. My favorite is how superior Celestion Greenbacks are said to sound, an incredibly cheap speaker to manufacture with an incredibly ridiculous price tag on it. Meanwhile I've heard $30 and $40 drivers that can compare to or exceed it's sound quality and performance.
All speakers sound the same?
No but price is not an indication of sound quality and performance.
. |
|
|
| Cal Weldon |
| quote: | Originally posted by FastEddy
"
" ... Sheesh, cal..I figured it was the other last line... " = me too ... |
Being a bumpkin from the north that I wasn't familiar with the term. I was thinking it had to do with a Tom Wolfe excerpt. Now that I am familiar, I will happily remove the other last line too. Thanks for the heads up guys. |
|
|
| DCPreamp |
| quote: | Originally posted by pjpoes
People may not like the existance of things like magic stones and sand filled stands, but even if they make no measurable difference, that doesn't mean that can't really improve the sound of reproduced music for a listener, as I said, placebo effects are just as real as anything else. If spending 50 dollars on a jar of marbles makes the imaging better in my head, I'm all for it, I would gladly spend 50 dollars to get a hypnotist to make me believe my speakers sound like a million bucks. |
So, would you be happy if a loved-one purchased a clock/radio for $100,000 because they thought it sounded good and it made them feel good without first checking other prices or listening to other units? How about if your loved-one was told the clock/radio was made with the finest hand-selected components, and with solder blessed by the Vatican, and plastic made from natural petroleum springs, when in fact it was mass-produced in China? Is it okay then?
Believe me, I’m all for people spending obscene amounts of money on silly things – as long as they know what they’re buying. However, when a charlatan sells a jar of marbles for $50 to improve stereo imaging, they should say it’s a jar of marbles and works if you think it works; not make claims that it’s a mystical energy focusing device utilizing untapped bovinic cosmic powers that works 100% of the time.
I also understand and believe in the placebo effect, but really wouldn’t like a pharmacy to boost its profits by randomly dispensing sugar-pills in place of antibiotics, BP medications, or immunosuppressants. When people voluntarily enter a drug study and fully understand they may receive placebos, then I’m fine with fake medications being dispensed and the “placebo effect” being witnessed. |
|
|
| Cal Weldon |
DrFrankenstein,
Don't waste your time. He suckered you into it. If he continues, he'll be dealt with. |
|
|
| SY |
| quote: | | but really wouldn’t like a pharmacy to boost its profits by randomly dispensing sugar-pills in place of antibiotics, BP medications, or immunosuppressants. |
Wake up, they sell homeopathic "medicine" and "dietary supplements." Not to mention magnetic bracelets and shoe insoles. There's no shortage of desperate, ignorant suckers. |
|
|
| DrFrankenstein |
| I'm well aware, I was simply board |
|
|
| Cal Weldon |
| I didn't know you were made of wood. |
|
|
| DCPreamp |
| quote: | Originally posted by SY
Wake up, they sell homeopathic "medicine" and "dietary supplements." Not to mention magnetic bracelets and shoe insoles. There's no shortage of desperate, ignorant suckers. |
But those silly things don’t require a prescription. There are, however pathetic and ridiculous it is, insurance companies that will pay for such items. Caveat emptor - with full disclosure. |
|
|
| DrFrankenstein |
| quote: | Originally posted by Cal Weldon
I didn't know you were made of wood. |
Actually according to the ladies, I'm the man of steel. |
|
|
| pinkmouse |
| quote: | Originally posted by DrFrankenstein
Actually according to the ladies, I'm the man of steel. |
Cold, dense, and with a tendency to rust? |
|
|
| auplater |
"If I want to know bout global warming, I only have to walk half a mile."
maybe a "nucular (sic) winter" will inevitably negate the effects of the "global warming" alledgedly caused by fossil fuel burning...:devilr: |
|
|
| Cal Weldon |
| Are we wandering a bit here? |
|
|
| andy_c |
| What I'd like to know is, why would someone want to debunk audio myths when it's so much easier to create them instead? If you try to debunk audio myths, you will be considered as some sort of Julian Hirsch-like character. But if you create them, you'll be considered a guru! :clown: |
|
|
| SY |
| That's a question Mrs. Y keeps asking me. "How much money does that idiot $500 power cord company make selling these things to suckers? How much do YOU make explaining why it's a rip-off? QED." |
|
|
| auplater |
i often wonder if the "magic smoke" theory of audio functionality is, in fact, just an urban legend.
I've had a few components smoke, and I could still hear some sounds after it happened. What's with that??:hot: |
|
|
| andy_c |
There needs to be some sort of FAQ for how to create audiophile myths. Here's one possible addition.
"Act very sure of yourself, even to the point of intolerable arrogance. People are much more likely to believe someone that's sure of himself, even if that person is completely wrong." |
|
|
| DCPreamp |
| Don’t forget lots of techno-hyperbole, the ability to completely ignore skeptics suggesting ABX tests, all while still being able to sleep at night. |
|
|
| Cal Weldon |
| quote: | Originally posted by andy_c
"Act very sure of yourself, even to the point of intolerable arrogance. |
I resemble that remark. |
|
|
| PeteMcK |
SY,
Just noticed the quote at the bottom of your posts, you've seen 'The Power of Nightmares"? - fascinating doco, pity it seems to have had only limited exposure in the 'land of the free' though.
Unfortunately it's probably too politcal to discuss here, even though it is about myths...
Cheers,
Pete McK |
|
|
| phn |
| quote: | Originally posted by jneutron
At least he liked Einstein..but, that was of course, relatively speaking..
Cheers, John
|
Now, now, John. I would expect that from somebody that doesn't know what Einsten was talking about. But definitely not from an engineer. |
|
|
| SY |
| Pete, no I haven't seen that, but I've read Qutb. And yes, we won't discuss him here, but I was attracted by the idea of a phonograph arousing these emotions. Especially in Baptists at a church dance, the people Qutb was writing about. |
|
|
| phn |
pjpoes, may use broad strokes (the size of the strokes is always debatable), but he does make some valid points.
The engineer type is likely to say things like, "With the DVD-A, digital sound reproduction has finally surpassed vinyl."
Does that mean that with the DVD-A digital audio finally surpassed vinyl's pathetic channel separation of -30db (probably lower)? The statement is a lie, no ands, ifs or buts.
The biggest audio myth I know is the delusion that we know anything. |
|
|
| rdf |
| My thoughts exactly and an opportunity to thank pjpoes for the input. It's symptomatic of these debates that the single contributor arguably most qualified to comment on methodology is roundly chased from the discussion. |
|
|
| pjpoes |
I appreciate all the feedback. I'm sorry if some were in any way offended, I think that, in trying to open up a more integrated conversation, I actually created more divide. When I said that I thought an engineer had no right telling a psychologist how to measure hearing, for instance, I realize now that didn't come out as I intended. Rather, I meant to say that instead of arguing over who has the best method, we should work together in developing methods. Work with cognitive psychologists, brain researchers, electrical engineers, audiologists, methodologists, and statisticians. It’s a more effective means, IMO, to achieve reliable results.
I know I'm going to get stuck needing to site this now, and it will take me some time to find the article again, but a few of the better university based DBT audio tests specific to music, which was my earlier point really, had the major problem of using test tones during short bursts, and asking listeners to reliably tell the difference between a test tone recorded at say 16 bit and then 24 bit, or on Sony headphones and then I think the others were Beyer dynamic. I've also read ones using test tones to find out perceivable differences in distortion levels, again, short bursts. Now mind you, this is speculation, its a potential intervening variable not addressed in precious studies, but sense memory is quite short, and expecting people to tell reliable difference between short consecutive tones, IMO, may not be possible. What it means is that, if someone can't reliably tell the difference in tests, it’s not because no difference exists, but because the test method isn't sensitive enough.
As for where I'm located, Upstate New York, I work for an agency that is part of the Cornell Family Life Development Center. My specialization isn't in audio; I'm a child development and behavior specialist. I should be careful now because obviously, based on my credentials, measuring audio is a little out of my realm. However I would argue this, my actual specialization is in methods and stats, my job is to find a way to measure human behavior and relate it to cognitive processes. I also, in fact mostly, develop the studies used to assess the effectiveness of intervention programs. I'm currently in-between my Masters and PhD.
|
|
|
| SY |
You've got the right background to start digging in. Experimental design and interpretation require those tools. I do organoleptic tests on a professional basis and was formerly involved in haptics research; sensory testing methodology and practice are very well-established.
There's some very good published work on the audibility of various phenomena, but you have to dig into it yourself and ignore the comic books. Nothing like the primary literature to help you cut through the fog, eh? |
|
|
| pjpoes |
| Somebody asked why I can't get my idea passed for research. A few reasons, one is that my area of expertise generally requires that I get brought in as a consultant on a project, not run the project on my own. I would need someone who specializes more in audio or sound to come up with the project, and ask that I be a part of it. Problem two is that I'm no longer a Cornell grad student, I work for an agency that works for an agency of Cornell, so I'm not even paid by Cornell anymore, I'm paid by a grant I got for the research project at this agency. The third reason is that I don't want to use sound accepted scientific methods, because I find them too limiting, and removing too much external validity. They have no real world practicality, so I feel they won't give me the results, but Cornell is currently trying to distance itself from these methods. The group I work with is part of the Human Development department at Cornell, and they have been working towards different methods, inwhich studies are more "acceptable." I also would need a lot of help developing the methods, as I don't have the understanding I need of how sound is reproduced, seperate from human perception. Thats where the engineer would come in. I don't fully know biologicly how our hearing works, I have a rough idea, but having a medical professional would be useful. Then somebody who has worked with brain mapping would also be a useful consultant, from the information I would gather in talking with them, I would then have the role of developing a useful measurement system. However, Since I want to develop a better new system, I would also have to validate the method, to ensure its reliability, and given my age and credentials, its douptful Cornell would want to chance that on me. Any PhD's out there want to sponsor me in a university study!!! |
|
|
| FastEddy |
" ... I don't want to use sound accepted scientific methods, because I find them too limiting, and removing too much external validity. They have no real world practicality, so I feel they won't give me the results, but Cornell is currently trying to distance itself from these methods. ..."
So, when did you come to this conclusion yourself ? ...And when do you believe that the scientific establishment went astray ? ... And do you feel that there will ever be a time when the established scientific community will revert to the more practical aspects of scientific research ?
Personally I have been lead to believe that around 1913 was a "split date", the time when teaching scientists, generally, began to follow esoteric mathematical and theoritical work away from reality, leading the established scientific community to "stray" from the path of real world exploration and research (in the lab, etc.) ... writing papers full of speculation instead of actually trying to make discoveries discoveries in the physical universe.
Your take? |
|
|
| SY |
Did you type that on a computer? Using silicon ICs? And printed circuits? Sent over fiber optic lines? Via satellites? In response to something you read on a video screen?
And are you still alive (what as life expectancy in 1913 compared to now?)?
edit: For a dose of real irony, it's worth clicking your www link. |
|
|
| FastEddy |
SY: " ... Did you type that on a computer? Using silicon ICs? And printed circuits? Sent over fiber optic lines? Via satellites? In response to something you read on a video screen? ..."
Yes, but you see almost every one of the technical advances you refer to here were made by engineers and non-degreed technicians and even hobbiests working in a real laboratory without benifit of the "advanced" esoteric speculation of academic science and phylosophy ... they found out the answers for themselves, in many cases, ignoring the conventional "wisdom" ...
Schottky discovered the fast diode himself by experiment in the lab. Guthrie, Braun, Edison and Fleming and then years later, Shockley theorized about radio diodes , long after the discoveries, not before.
Dr. Ramo worked out all of the basic photographic processes for [silicon and other] IC manufacture in his home laboratory, demonstrating that the theorists were wrong and actual hobbiests' experimental evidence was right ... at least that's what he told me. (Same / same with TTL logic = all hobbiests lab work, trial and error experiment and invention, not the commonly held belief that it was worked out by theoritical mathematicians ahead of the curve.)
Farnsworth and raster scan TV? ... while sitting on a tractor, plowing his father's field, then building it in his shop. Etching optical pathways in glass with ultra sound? Two very bright high school dropouts in a lab at UC Davis, contrary to the wishes and directions of their overseeing theoritician. (They both work for Intel now and discolsure can not be done until Intel theorists get the patent applications written.)
The generally accepted consensus that theory leads practice made the "split" around 1913, IMOP. I was not there, but it sure appears that after Einstein's various theories became accepted by experimental evidence, academic scientists seemed to believe they could do as well or better than inventors, the inventors (many unaccredited) demonstarting repeatedly that elbow grease and sweat almost always uncovers reality better than pencil and paper ...
Always Question Authority ... and try it in the lab before you believe what the paper writers are pushing.
:smash: |
|
|
| pjpoes |
I generally agree with what is being said here, though I was getting at a slightly different aspect of this issue. Part of it is that, the scientists aren't necassarily wrong, but without applied practice of their idea's, we don't know. They won't share them with engineers, so we never see them in practice, and they won't apply the ideas themselves, probably because they lack the ability to do so.
Let me give you my perspective, which comes from a very different history in science. Again I work in behavioral sciences, not traditional lab sciences. Psychologists, behaviorists, psychiatrists, etc. have worked for near a century now developing theories on why we are the way we are, how our brains work, what makes us act, etc. etc... The problem is, none of this information has been readily used for practical purposes. Though I don't want to overstate and say that this is a new idea, it is a new revolution in social research, and that is what we call applied methods work. For example, B.F. Skinner developed a theory related to operant conditioning on the effectiveness of positive reinforcement over punishment or negative reinforcement as a means to behavior change. As it was structured it was completely impractical for real world use. Within the last 15 years or so researchers have expanded this behaviorist view into practical parenting practices, managerial styles, etc. in order to improve their effectiveness. Today all the things we commonly see, like them or not, come from this system. Ideas like reward scales, getting stickers, 5 good things for every bad thing you say, counting to three, praising good grades, timeout, etc.
I'm currently working in a sort of cutting edge area of research where we are taking it farther. A lot of universities develop wonderful programs to deal with thigns like Parent Child Interaction, which require highly trained psychologist in a well funded university based center, in order to be effective. We take these idea's and disseminate them so that we can rebuild the programs into packages usable by basic community centers without the great funding and resources. My most recent contribution to this work is taking a complex direct behavioral analysis system designed to track changes in PCI, and create a usable version for our center. The original system required an initial outlay of 15,000 dollars and annual costs of close to 10,000, along with the fees to pay a well educated research to do all the coding. My changes not only improved the real world reliability of the measure, at the expense of some internal validity, but also reduced the costs to around 1000 dollars initially, 100 dollars a year, and the cost trained associate level worker. I accomplished this through the miracles of software really, I did all the hard work for them in the software, making it as simple as loading a video into this piece of software, and clicking on buttons each time something is seen. All the stats are then automaticly generated, including Kappa R's for inter-rater reliability. Its great, its super simple, and its actually useful. |
|
|
| FastEddy |
pjpoes: " ... Part of it is that, the scientists aren't necassarily wrong, but without applied practice of their idea's, we don't know. They won't share them with engineers, so we never see them in practice, and they won't apply the ideas themselves, probably because they lack the ability to do so. ..."
Well, they do usually share quite readily with the engineers, whether right or wrong, and that's the point.
" ... Psychologists, behaviorists, psychiatrists, etc. have worked for near a century now developing theories on why we are the way we are, how our brains work, what makes us act, etc. etc... The problem is, none of this information has been readily used for practical purposes. ..."
... again, whether right or wrong ... although I might differ on the "none ... used" part. I would have said that theories are being applied in some cases (brain washing, subliminal communication in advertising, etc.), although occasionally incorrectly and with rare but significant disaster resulting (belief paradigm @ Jonestown? ... & Taliban?).
" ... wonderful programs to deal with thigns like Parent Child Interaction, which require highly trained psychologist in a well funded university based center, in order to be effective. We take these idea's and disseminate them so that we can rebuild the programs into packages usable by basic community centers without the great funding and resources. ... ... [doing it with] software, making it as simple as loading a video into this piece of software, and clicking on buttons each time something is seen. ... ... its super simple, and its actually useful. "
A laudable goal, no doubt. Extropolation from real world, quantifiable, verifiable lab results to the more general case, in a very cost effective manner.
Wondering: how much of the past, commonly accepted wisdom and theory (ala Skinner, et al) is being "tweaked" or modified to accomodate your current resulting laboratory work? |
|
|
| SY |
| quote: | | Yes, but you see almost every one of the technical advances you refer to here were made by engineers and non-degreed technicians and even hobbiests working in a real laboratory without benifit of the "advanced" esoteric speculation of academic science and phylosophy ... they found out the answers for themselves, in many cases, ignoring the conventional "wisdom" ... |
Well, I guess Shockley, Bardeen, Brattain et al had better give their Nobels back. |
|
|
| pjpoes |
To be honest, that’s what’s so interesting about this. I have a hard time claiming that I am doing anything new or revolutionary. When I talk about my work to others, generally, I don't talk about it being cutting edge or revolutionary. It's not, IMO, but I have been told by my seniors that I need to, because that’s how you make it in this world. All I do is take other peoples idea's, old tried and true ideas, like Skinner, and adapting the ideas into practical programs. I develop and evaluate interventions, using the theories people like Skinner developed. Currently there is a huge move towards evidence based practices, causing big changes in how programs are funded. Though still not ready to properly fund research efforts, many funding agencies want to see ongoing evaluations of programs in order to keep the funding up.
My current project requires 4 reports a year giving results on the programs impact on clients, recidivism, impact on the Department of Social Services, etc. I use a multi-dimensional model for evaluation which includes ongoing visit reports, direct behavioral analysis, client interviews, program facilitator interviews, and finally analyzing the New York State data warehouse in order to track recidivism and length of stay in foster care. I'm also currently adding a component which will allow me to track, to some extent, the effects our curriculum has on the success or failure of clients. It's related to a previous published work I did on retention and engagement in a nurse home visitation program for teen moms.
So how does all this relate to my point that scientists are frequently reluctant to share. Again, in my own field, which I have most experience in, everyone is trying to make a name for themselves. They develop a good idea, but not one that can be adopted into general public use. They give talks, write papers, perform randomized trials, and it appears to the public that its this wonderful new idea that could completely change the world of whatever its trying to deal with. Problem is, once the studies are done, the programs die out, because they require actual community based centers to support the ongoing efforts of such programs, along with steady funding. It's too expensive to use researchers, but if you use paraprofessionals, nurses, or anyone of lower credentials, you often begin to dilute the program, and results can no longer be guaranteed. In fact, the frequently go away, and you just have one more crappy social welfare program. As a result of this history, an example is Head Start Program; many of the researchers developing these ideas are reluctant to share the ideas, as they don't want to see this happen to their name. Instead, either the idea dies with them, or they begin training and licensing centers to act as representative center. However, it’s at a huge cost generally, and requires unreasonable levels of training, all the while not able to maintain proper funding. That’s where I come in, I work with these groups to take the program, trim the fat, and make them practical, while insuring through simple methods, that none of the effects are lost. |
|
|
| SY |
| quote: | Originally posted by SY
Well, I guess Shockley, Bardeen, Brattain et al had better give their Nobels back. |
Oh, one more thing. Nothing, and I mean NOTHING, about semiconductors and their junctions makes any sense without a fundamental understanding of that esoteric academic post-1913 quantum mechanics. |
|
|
| rdf |
| To me the real crux of the matter is targets and the discussion's drifting to implementation. Physicists are best at developing the theoretical framework, engineers the concrete realization, neither has a leg up in determining valid goals for sound reproduction. Nothing in my engineering educational background related to the ear/brain system. Isn’t how the ear works and valid targets for audio reproduction properly the domain of the medical and behavioural sciences? |
|
|
| SY |
| All of those sorts of people look at these issues and do research. A scan of JASA and JAES will find physicists, mathematicians, engineers, and psychologists, often on the same paper. Even some musicians now and then. |
|
|
| phn |
Computer game designers do what they do with little or no academic background. It's virtually all done by intuition, gut feeling and "wouldn't that look cool?"
Computer systems design has a success rate of about 25 pct. No wonder game design is one of the hottest subjects in college. I'm not talking just about gamers. I'm talking MIT. The academics have tons to learn from those 20-something game designers.
Ultimately when we deal with game design, systems design and audio we deal with human experience. |
|
|
| FastEddy |
SY: " ... Well, I guess Shockley, Bardeen, Brattain et al had better give their Nobels back. ..."
Maybe ...
SY: ... All of those sorts of people look at these issues and do research. A scan of JASA and JAES will find physicists, mathematicians, engineers, and psychologists, often on the same paper. Even some musicians now and then. ..."
Papers, yes ... the hardware, not always. Often there is just one or two techies or hardware hackers, nailing together some parts from the junk yard, trying to see what will happen or if something that "commonly held wisdom" says "can't be", actually is . The big word papers often come long after the fact of invention. (Academia has very often been wrong about what is possible and what is not. The Wright brothers being a recent but well trod example.)
SY: " ... Nothing, and I mean NOTHING, about semiconductors and their junctions makes any sense without a fundamental understanding of that esoteric academic post-1913 quantum mechanics. ..."
Okay, if you say so. But I for one believe that Schottky is being left out of the time frame. Although he and his acadamic friends did not publish until 1939 (in light of unexplained Quantum considerations like the tunnel diode, etc.), his basic discoveries about solid state fast recovery diodes were done before 1913 ... the explaining papers not catching up to the discoveries more than three decades later.
In otherwords, the barrier junction gadgets worked and existed and were used in practical applications (radio receivers) long before the acadamic paper work caught up to the facts ... quantum Theories not withstanding. :hot: |
|
|
| XEAGLEKEEPER |
| quote: | | Burn in of aviation electronic equipment is SOP |
During my tenor in the USAF my carreer field was....F-15 avionics tech. Most proficient on the electronic countermeasures systems ie. Jamming radar. These bigass RF amplifiers had traveling wave tubes TWT's which required a burn-in period whenever a new tube was installed. The ATE would go thru a subroutine that would "cook" the tubes for a predetermined period of time which totally depended on the new tubes datasheet. The burn-in had a two fold purpose 1) de-gas the tube 2) reliabilty test under prolong operation. Can't have a jammer fail when you have a SAM in your 6...LOL:) |
|
|
| analog_sa |
| quote: | Originally posted by XEAGLEKEEPER
Murphy was a optimus.
|
What is "a optimus"? |
|
|
| SY |
| The opposite of a pessimus. What, they don't teach Latin down in SA?;) |
|
|
| jneutron |
| quote: | Originally posted by phn
Now, now, John. I would expect that from somebody that doesn't know what Einsten was talking about. But definitely not from an engineer. |
:confused: :confused: :confused:
To quote the famous philosopher...Earsplittenloudenboomer..
Que??
As an inguneer who read Popper a coupla decades ago, what does I'z do?? I check da wiki-ped...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper
Wherein, i findz dis gem..
Quote within wickipedia (sans links):
""He strongly disagreed with Niels Bohrs' instrumentalism and supported Albert Einstein's realist approach to scientific theories about the universe.""
Hence, my relativistic pun..
Cheers, John
ps..your not saying "gasp" that wikipedia is wrong, are you?? What'd be the purpose of life without wiki?? |
|
|
| jneutron |
| quote: | Originally posted by rdf
To me the real crux of the matter is targets and the discussion's drifting to implementation. Physicists are best at developing the theoretical framework, engineers the concrete realization, neither has a leg up in determining valid goals for sound reproduction. Nothing in my engineering educational background related to the ear/brain system. Isn’t how the ear works and valid targets for audio reproduction properly the domain of the medical and behavioural sciences? |
To me, many of the papers tend toward's pure research, not directly applicable to real life stereo reproduction.
Localization testing requires real life stimulus. Not sines, SAM's, target and pointers which are pure ITD or IID..
There must be a clear distinction between simple system tests, and the more complicated interpretation, which is what we do.
How the ear works is a subset.
Cheers, John |
|
|
| pjpoes |
You do have to be careful with wikipedia, it gets a lot wrong. The information is only as good as the author, and it is absolutely questionable who these authors are. Yes they go under some level of "Peer review" but again, who are these peers, what makes them experts on the subject. I know wikipedia is not considered an acceptable source of information in most if any universities because of this issue.
My case in point is a discussion I was having in a summer class I tought on the history of modern jazz. We were talking about the most recent modern movement after fussion which involved the mixing of electronic instruments, acoustic instruments, and DJ's to form yet another sound. For those wondering who I am talking about, the most famous I know of would be The Beastie Boys, and the best would be Medeski Martin and Wood. Anyway, one of the kid disagreed with me that Breakbeats was a term coined recently by those sampeling the break | | | |
